Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

page: 14
56
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 





Do you have a source or is your claim "both buildings dis withstand the impact of both airplanes" 100% un expert opinion?


Watch this series of videos with Ron Avery to get some idea of how these buildings were constructed. Those building shredded those planes.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There are many explosives available that will not explode from just being exposed to fire, or even water for that matter. Some of them take specific detonators to make them detonate.


I was asking about the detonators. They would have to have some sort of radio frequency device? How do you protect the equipment from a speeding 757, the damage, the explosions, etc.? Keep in mind where the collapses initiated.






How do you protect people from an impacting plane? There were people on the impacted floors who survived, out of which some were able to escape to tell their story. If the plane didnt take out all squishy humans on the impacted floor, its safe to assume more than enough devices survived the impact.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



How do you protect people from an impacting plane? There were people on the impacted floors who survived, out of which some were able to escape to tell their story. If the plane didnt take out all squishy humans on the impacted floor, its safe to assume more than enough devices survived the impact.


How would you know what charges would survive the impact? Idea behind controlled demolition is to set off a
carefully sequenced explosions to cut the structural columns. A plane smashing through the building would
have destroyed the pattern of charges

Then again the fire afterwards would have destroyed the charges or at very least the wiring and det cord linking
them together.

In a controlled demolition the charges are connected by strings of det cord with delay elements incorporated to
give the correct sequence. Charges except for the first one are not triggerdd by radio, too unreliable in a
building as large as WTC . Also forgetting that roof of North tower housed powerful radio/TV transmitters
for many of NYC stations. How do you prevent stray radio signals from premature detonation of the charges

Sorry doesnr work....



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Cassius666
 



How do you protect people from an impacting plane? There were people on the impacted floors who survived, out of which some were able to escape to tell their story. If the plane didnt take out all squishy humans on the impacted floor, its safe to assume more than enough devices survived the impact.


How would you know what charges would survive the impact? Idea behind controlled demolition is to set off a
carefully sequenced explosions to cut the structural columns. A plane smashing through the building would
have destroyed the pattern of charges

Then again the fire afterwards would have destroyed the charges or at very least the wiring and det cord linking
them together.

In a controlled demolition the charges are connected by strings of det cord with delay elements incorporated to
give the correct sequence. Charges except for the first one are not triggerdd by radio, too unreliable in a
building as large as WTC . Also forgetting that roof of North tower housed powerful radio/TV transmitters
for many of NYC stations. How do you prevent stray radio signals from premature detonation of the charges

Sorry doesnr work....



Is that just your opinion or are you a demolition expert, or at the very least a structural engineer? Satisfy my curiosity, why does anything thethedman say on the subject of controlled demolition carry any weight? I am the kinda person to give more weight to the people who have expertise on a given topic. It has served me well so far.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The surely would have used a wireless system, that technology was available back then, even if it was not available to the mainstream.

CDI were also apparently one of the companies contracted to remove the steel, which is odd seeing as they that is not their line of work.

Does anyone know what the 2 unmarked white vehicles in this video might be? The can be seen following each other away from the scene at about 0:55, they look official because of the lights on top, but they are obviously not emergency workers??



Perhaps demolition crew?


The guy in the following video is blatantly telling lies (0:41), worth watching all the vide though, only 2 mins long. He was in a white pick up too, although I think he was probably just a bad actor and not a demolition worker.




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Using a wireless system to bring down a building in a city that is basically an RF hell? Do you have any idea of how horribly bad that would be? First off, with a straight wireless system, there is always almost guaranteed situation where charges do not get the signal to detonate, then there is the chance that charges could be set off accidentally by random RF. Then, there is the fact that Manhatten is full of RF energy...and the Towers themselves were a focal point because of both the emergency systems radio repeaters and the cellphone repeaters. Yeah, wireless would be GOOD idea......... I suppose you could encrypt the signals, but then that adds to the hardware necessary to detonate the charges.....of which you would find remnants of in the debris during the sorting process. Not to mention, there would still be the issue of charges not getting the signal.

Since no wiring, no receivers, and no unexploded charges were ever found, once again, ther is absolutely NO evidence of a demolition process......and no, looking at the video and saying that looks like a CD is not evidence.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Using a wireless system to bring down a building in a city that is basically an RF hell? Do you have any idea of how horribly bad that would be? First off, with a straight wireless system, there is always almost guaranteed situation where charges do not get the signal to detonate, then there is the chance that charges could be set off accidentally by random RF. Then, there is the fact that Manhatten is full of RF energy...and the Towers themselves were a focal point because of both the emergency systems radio repeaters and the cellphone repeaters. Yeah, wireless would be GOOD idea......... I suppose you could encrypt the signals, but then that adds to the hardware necessary to detonate the charges.....of which you would find remnants of in the debris during the sorting process. Not to mention, there would still be the issue of charges not getting the signal.

Since no wiring, no receivers, and no unexploded charges were ever found, once again, ther is absolutely NO evidence of a demolition process......and no, looking at the video and saying that looks like a CD is not evidence.


You are assuming they were using RF!

You obvioulsly have no idea about methods used to trigger bombs! There are many ways this can be accomplished without it being set off accidentally, and they managed ok on the day, yeah one or two bombs may have gone off a little too early, but most of them went off like clockwork. As we can see, it was done with quite a bit of precision.

BTW, there are enough eye witnesses that reported bombs, your lies are not working anymore. Give up now before you make yourself look more foolish.

You and your thought police sockpuppet 'debunkers' are not the authority on 9/11, people are more than capable of seeing bombs were used, and no matter how much your try to cover that up, you are just drawing attention to the holes and lies in the 'official BS story'.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 



There are many ways this can be accomplished without it being set off accidentally...


Really? Name three. Name three methods of initiating explosives that are completely immune to premature or accidental detonation.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Name ONE witness who saw a bomb. Not somebody who heard an explosion and said bomb, but someone who saw an honest to goodness demolition charge. Just one.


BTW the EOD guys would like to know how you are going to set off the demolition process without using witing or RF signals........



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Name ONE witness who saw a bomb. Not somebody who heard an explosion and said bomb, but someone who saw an honest to goodness demolition charge. Just one.


BTW the EOD guys would like to know how you are going to set off the demolition process without using witing or RF signals........


**sigh*

merln.ndu.edu...


...Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.


~George W. Bush, September 15, 2006
edit on 14-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
~George W. Bush, September 15, 2006

Here's the video:





posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 



interesting in the 2nd video there how the 'no plane guy' got a whole 27 seconds of airtime, while 'i saw the plane guy' warranted 82 seconds of the same airtime, or 1 minute 22 seconds.

like my sig says, go figure.
edit on 14/7/12 by RoScoLaz because: remove comma



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


We keep the "no-plane" disinformation in the HOAX bin on this and most other sites around the net. Just FYI.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


*sigh* Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was nowhere near NYC that day. Like I said, name ONE person who actually saw a bomb there that day. Besides, haven't quite a few people here claimed that nothing KSM said was reliable because he was tortured????



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Can you point out there the part where he mentions explosives and WTC in the same line please? Thank you!



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Can you point out there the part where he mentions explosives and WTC in the same line please? Thank you!


You must be kidding. No wait I've seen enough to know you're not kidding.

Why don't you tell us what else he might have been talking about.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


*sigh* Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was nowhere near NYC that day. Like I said, name ONE person who actually saw a bomb there that day. Besides, haven't quite a few people here claimed that nothing KSM said was reliable because he was tortured????




What does that matter? None of the 19 alleged "terrorists" were anywhere near NYC that day. The point is Bush admitted there were explosives in the towers. So either the "terrorists" planted them or someone else did.

Besides, why should anyone be expected to "see" a bomb? Even if they saw a flash, you would concoct a cover story to explain the flash, like they were under too much stress or something... or somehow it was jet fuel exploding.

edit on 16-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Thank you for once again, showing just how misinformed you are. Have a pleasant evening.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


You must be kidding. No wait I've seen enough to know you're not kidding.

Why don't you tell us what else he might have been talking about.


Ok, once again I see a common learning disability in Trutherworld. Reading comprehension. Why is it truthers have such a hard time with reading comprehension?

Ok, ok, I'll post the text, and I want, not only you, but anybody to show me directly where there is a direct mention of the WTC in Bush's quote. Fair deal? You are adamant he just somehow admitted to explosives in the WTC. (How the hell you came to that conclusion I do not know.) I do wish for you to show me in his quote, talking about the WTC.


The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured
terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots,
including strikes within the United States.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

We've also learned information from the CIA program that has helped stop other plots, including
attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East Africa, or American consulate in Pakistan, or Britain's
Heathrow Airport. This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this
country. It's been invaluable to our country, and it's invaluable to our allies.
Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would
have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. Making us -- giving us
information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives.
In other words, it's vital. That's why I asked Congress to pass legislation so that our professionals can
go forward, doing the duty we expect them to do. Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put
the future of this program in question. That's another reason I went to Congress. We need this
legislation to save it.


Ok, so KSM was telling them details of planned attacks which were thwarted by our intelligence and military agencies. Can you show us where Bush said anything about the WTC and explosives in the WTC?

I'll wait. *cue Jeopardy music*

(Note: I really do believe that many members of the Truther group really need to work on reading comprehension skills. I can think of quite a few 9/11 conspiracy claims that burst forth from the inability to comprehend what was read or being said, and jumping to conclusions that have no basis on the text itself. To name a few of the best known ones: Larry and the "pull it" phrase; The "missing/stolen trillions"; many of the "people hearing things that sounded like explosions ergo it was bombs"; Defense secretary saying a missile hit the Pentagon.)





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum